Gregg v. Board of Commissioners

AlleN, J\, after stating the case: There is, in our opinion, no valid objection to issuing the bonds in controversy. The act, as it passed the House, was not obligatory on any school district in the State, but simply gave the opportunity to all to hold an election as to issuing bonds, etc., and every provision now in the act was not only in it at that, time, but it also applied to Liberty School District, as one of the districts *484 of tbe State, and the effect of the amendment adopted in the Senate was not to include Liberty School District, but to exclude other districts. As thus understood, the amendment falls within the principle declared in Brown v. Stewart, 134 N. C., 351; Commissioners v. Stafford, 138 N. C., 453; Bank v. Lacy, 151 N. C., 3. It is equally well settled that, when the act has been passed in accordance with the provisions of Article II, sec. 14, of the Constitution, an amendment which does not increase the amount of the bonds or tax'to be levied, or otherwise materially change the original bill, may be adopted by the concurrence of both houses of the General Assembly. Commissioners v. Stafford, 138 N. C., at p. 455. The second objection would -require Serious consideration if the fact was as contended by the plaintiff; but when the petition' is read with the order of the county commissioners, it is clear that the election was ordered for the district, and -that it was to be held at the usual place in the district, which was in the town of Liberty, and it does not appear that any citizen affected by the election was deprived of the right to vote. No evidence was offered in support of the allegation that the requisite number of freeholders did not sign the petition for the election, and in addition to the presumption in favor of the legality and regularity of the acts of public officers, the act provides, after the requirement as to the petition, that “The ordering of such election by the board of county commissioners shall conclusively presume that all precedent conditions and provisions of this act have been complied with.” There is nothing in the act which limits the time after the election within which the bonds may be issued, and in the absence of evidence of abuse of power, the delay is no valid reason for restraining the defendants from doing so. It may be that the defendants have had trouble in selling the bonds, and that they have taken steps to issue them as soon as a sale could be made. Upon a review of the whole record, we find no error. Affirmed.